I too am hearing the prelude to cannon fire, and have for some time now....
DISSENT AND UNREST IN AMERICA
A while ago, a so-called future time traveller name of John Titor said the a Civil War will come to America once again. Not that I believe this man,
but the signs are everywhere that Americans are getting mad at their Government.....
The continuing episodes of protest and dissent in the United States have their basis in the First Amendment to the Constitution, a great safety valve
that is lacking in most other nations of the world. The First Amendment creates a sanctuary around the citizen's beliefs. His ideas, his conscience,
his convictions are his _ own concern, not the government's.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
All dissenters are protected by the First Amendment. A "communist" can be prosecuted for actions against society, but not for expressing his views
as to what the world order should be. Although television and radio time as well as newspaper space is available to the affluent members of this
society to disseminate their views, most people cannot afford that space. Hence, the means of protest, and the customary manner of dissent in America,
from the days of the American Revolution, has been pamphleteering.
Other methods of expression, however, are also protected by the First Amendment-from picketing, to marching on the city streets, to walking to the
State Capital or to Congress, to assembling in parks and the like.
It was historically the practice of state police to use such labels as "breach of the peace" or "disorderly conduct" to break up groups of
minorities who were protesting in these unorthodox ways. The real crime of the dissenters was that they were out of favor with the Establishment, and
breach of the peace or disorderly conduct was used merely as a cloak to conceal the true nature of the prosecution.
In 1931 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, held that the First Amendment was applicable to the States by reason
of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That Clause provides that no State shall deny any person "liberty" without "due process."
The Hughes Court held that the right to dissent, protest, and march for that purpose was within the purview of the First Amendment. Breach of the
peace and disorderly conduct could, therefore, no longer be used as an excuse for the prosecution of minorities.
Parades, of course, can be regulated to avoid traffic problems and to allow for easy access to public offices by other people. Pickets may be
regulated as to numbers and times and places. But the basic right of public protest may not be abridged.
While violence is not protected by the Constitution, lawful conduct, such as marching and picketing, often boils over into unlawful conduct because
people are emotional, not rational, beings. So are the police; and very often they arrest the wrong people. For the police are an arm of the
Establishment and view protesters with suspicion. Yet American protesters need not be submissive. A speaker who resists arrest is acting as a free
man. The police do not have carte blanche to interfere with his freedom. They do not have the license to arrest at will or to silence people at
This is one of the many instances showing how the Constitution was designed to keep government off the backs of the people.
Military strategy has indeed become dominant in our thinking; and the dominance of the military attitude has had a sad effect at home.
There have always been grievances and youth has always been the agitator.
Forces too numerous to catalogue have produced a decade of protests that is in many ways unique:
(1) It comes during a time of prolonged affluence, not of depression;
(2) It is not ideological in its orientation, but is essentially
(3) It is led by the young people who, though not unanimous in tactics or in objectives, have given these protests a revolutionary tone. The goal of
their revolution is not to destroy the regime of technology. It is to make the existing system more human, to make the machine subservient to man, to
allow for the flowering of a society where all the idiosyncrasies of man can be honored and respected.
The First Amendment was designed so as to permit a flowering of man and his idiosyncrasies, but we have greatly diluted it. Although the Amendment
says that Congress shall make "no law" abridging freedom of speech and press, this has been construed to mean that Congress may make "some laws"
that abridge that freedom.
The courts have written some astonishing decisions in that area. Here are a few examples:
A person may not be punished for believing a so-called noxious or communist doctrine; but he may be punished for being an "active" advocate of that
A person may not be prosecuted for reading or teaching Karl Marx; but he may be sent to prison for "conspiring" with others to conduct classes or
seminars on the Marxist creed.
A person may be convicted for making a speech or for pamphleteering if a judge rules ex post facto that the speaker or publisher created a "clear and
present danger" that his forbidden or revolutionary thesis would be accepted by at least some of the audience.
A person may be convicted of publishing a book if the highest Court, in time, decides that the book has no "socially redeeming value."
In these and in many other respects we have fostered a climate of conformity.
Big Brother, in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons
why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order, to efficiency of operations, to scientific advancement, and the like. The cause of
privacy will be won or lost essentially in legislative halls and in constitutional assemblies. If it is won, this pluralistic society of ours will
experience a spiritual renewal. If it is lost we will have written our own prescription for mediocrity and conformity.
The tendency of these mounting invasions of privacy is the creation of a creeping conformity that makes us timid in our thinking at a time when the
problems which envelop us demand bold and adventuresome attitudes.
Electronic surveillance, as well as old-fashioned wire tapping, has brought Big Brother closer to everyone and has produced a like levelling effect.
In 1968 Congress made wire-tapping and electronic surveillance lawful provided it was done with a warrant, as provided in the Fourth Amendment, issued
by a judge on a showing of probable cause that certain specified crimes had been or were being committed. Exempted altogether from any supervision
were national security cases where the President was given large authority to proceed against suspected spies and subversives. But the Administration
soon broadened that category to include domestic groups who attempt to use unlawful means to "attack the existing structure of government." The Wall
Street Journal sounded the alarm that such broad surveillance "could lead to the harassment of lawful dissenters." And the New York Times, in reply
to the claim that Presidential power extends to surveillance of groups which threaten the government, observed that that was the theory behind the
oppressive search warrants authorized by King George III and they were the reason we got the Fourth Amendment.
The FBI, NSA and the CIA are the most notorious offenders, but lesser lights also participate: Every phone in every federal or state agency is
suspect. Every conference room in government buildings is assumed to be bugged. Every Embassy phone is an open transmitter. Certain hotels in
Washington have allotments of rooms that are wired for sound and even contain two-way mirrors, so that the occupants can be taped or filmed.
It is safe to assume that in the federal capital, as well as in each state capital, there is no such thing as secret classified information.
The dissent we witness is a reaffirmation of faith in man; it is protest against living under rules and prejudices and attitudes that produce the
extremes of wealth and poverty and that make us dedicated to the destruction of people through arms, bombs, and gases, and that prepare us to think
alike and be submissive objects for the regime of the computer.
The dissent we witness is a protest against the belittling of man, against his debasement, against a society that makes "lawful" the exploitation of
This period of dissent based on belief in man will indeed be our great renaissance.
There is I believe , a common suspicion among youth around the world that the design for living, fashioned for them by their politically bankrupt
elders, destined them either to the nuclear incinerator or to a life filled with a constant fear of it.
The Pentagon has a fantastic budget that enables it to dream of putting down the much-needed revolutions which will arise in Peru, in the Philippines,
and in other benighted countries.
Where is the force that will restrain the Pentagon?
Would a President dare face it down?
The strength of a center of power like the Pentagon is measured in part by the billions of dollars it commands. Its present budget is1/3 of the total
federal budget, the GNP.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth
of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.
Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
Every generation needs a new revolution.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.
John F. Kennedy
Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our
own responsibility for the future.
John F. Kennedy
Ladies and Gentlemen, before we had a Constitution, which has been stamped upon, and trampled beneath the feet of Tyrants, we Americans had the
Articles of Confederation. Every Patriotic American should study and know these Articles, for true freedom lies in pure knowledge.
Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781
I have been predicting this for some time now, and it's happening right before my eyes....
In case you didn't hear about it on the mainstream media (which you
haven't because they want to keep us asleep), numerous states are currently declaring or have already declared sovereignty, including:
US Supreme Court: Tenth Amendment:
Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment specifies that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as “the foundation of the Constitution” and added, “to take a single step beyond the boundaries
thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” Jefferson's formulation of
this doctrine of “strict construction” was echoed by champions of state sovereignty for many decades.
1. The act of nullifying.
2. The state of being nullified.
2. Refusal or failure of a U.S. state to recognize or enforce a federal law within its boundaries.
Nullification is the doctrine by which states claimed power to declare a law of the federal government unconstitutional. It was the most important
theoretical alternative to the idea that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional controversies.
THE ABSTRACT RIGHT OF SECESSION.
The Lieber Code of 1863
(Martial Law that is still in effect!)
States to feds: Stay in D.C.!
The New Secessionists
THE CONFEDERACY PROJECT A Blueprint For Peaceful Secession
The Sons of Liberty
New American Civil War Recruiting Station
The United American Freedom Foundation
American Patriot Network
Oath Keepers Website
Constitutional Amendment to Secede from the United States of America